I think there are two angles there: Socialized medicine and socialism.
I think Americans get a bitter taste in their mouth about socialism because America is "the land of opportunity". Socialism diminishes that opportunity (e.g. What's the incentive to do incredibly well if you receive no significant reward for it?) and erodes at a lot of what the United States--like it or not--was founded upon.
But, of course, people love to be on the receiving end of socialism. So when a basic service (for example, healthcare) gets royally f*%ked by opportunists, people are quick to call on the government to "fix" things.
I personally twitch at the sound of the word "socialism" because, in a money-centered society (which I think we can agree describes the social system of the U.S. quite well), whoever has the money has the power. Socialism gives increasing power to an entity that has no other incentive than to be "in power". Say what you want about the evil of corporations, at least their allegiance is consistently aligned with the bottom line. If a CEO gets fired, (s)he can find an equally tremendous job elsewhere. If a President/Senator gets "fired", they'll be lucky to avoid prosecution/execution, much less find employment elsewhere. For an example of the bad side of this, see "Hugo Chavez" cross-referenced with "Citgo Oil", "decreased productivity" and "constitutional amendment to abolish term limits and redraw voting districts".
But speaking for the Americans that I know personally, socialism defeats independence. The people whom I know who decry socialism are fiercely proud of their independence--they own land, they own the means to feed themselves, they're healthy, and they're proud. Socialism tells them "someone other than myself knows what's best for me" and it pisses them off to even suggest that.
This attitude falls in line with the "American spirit". From day one, the founding fathers sought to be independent entirely for the sake of being independent (though they used "taxes" and "tyranny" as some kind of excuse, despite Americans now paying more taxes and adhering to more laws than under British Rule). By contrast, General Brock valiantly laid down his life to defend Canada's right to be...British.
I saw "Sicko" too and--though I would agree with you and the firefighter about Mr. Moore's douchebaggery--he made a good point about "socializing" medicine: we already have a lot of socialized systems that work adequately, if not downright "well". Firefighting among them. Why the pundits (and I say "pundits" because I don't think there's an American who ever had to pay a surgery bill that isn't all for some kind of socialized medicine) are so freaked out about socialized medicine is beyond me.
Hey JB - Way slow response on my part, but better late than never, right?
"But speaking for the Americans that I know personally, socialism defeats independence. The people whom I know who decry socialism are fiercely proud of their independence--they own land, they own the means to feed themselves, they're healthy, and they're proud. Socialism tells them "someone other than myself knows what's best for me" and it pisses them off to even suggest that."
I guess it comes down to different notions of "socialism" and "independence" - I've never felt like having a somewhat socialist government curtails my freedom in any way, or that anyone is telling me what to do. Socialism to me is (in theory) the exact opposite: putting the power in the hands of the people, and putting the government to work on our behalf. Having the "freedom" to make what we want out of our lives without the obstacles of inadequate public education or access to medical services, just for a couple of major examples. Everyone having an equal shot at pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, or whatever.
A lot of the fear/negative reaction, I'm guessing, comes from the examples of Stalin, etc. But totalitarianism and socialism aren't inherently linked, and as for accumulation of power, George Bush has a great deal more individual power than my own dearly beloved (not) Prime Minister Harper does.
I dunno, I guess I find it odd/worrying/sad to watch Americans direct so much fear and antipathy towards this socialist spectre on the left that will supposedly steal their freedom, all the while giving it away in any case to the folks on the right.
Americans tend to ignore any kind of socialism except Stalin's Russia, and even then can't explain what's so scary about it because they don't know the history - only the paranoia. That's some pretty effective politicking.
"Communist" is much less popular than "socialist," but it does depend on who you're talking to...
There was a woman who worked with my wife who refused to talk to her, because she's Russian and therefore a communist. Moron.
How about "atheist?" I've had some weird run-ins with that in the States but never had any sense it was an issue elsewhere.
Daniel wrote: How about "atheist?"
This might sound a little weird, but up here anyhow I'd equate the taboo level of "atheist" to the taboo level of "vegetarian" - meaning that people generally respect the choice in theory, but there's always that really offensive, proselytizing atheist/vegetarian who insists on loudly and publicly denigrating their listeners' religious/carnivorous choices, giving the rest of the group a bad name. I don't mean to equate "God is a lie, you ignorant sheep" with "Meat is murder" but, you know, just that the reaction to those occasional outspoken types is similar...
Am I making sense at all? Or have I just offended, like, everybody?
Since when is it a crime to offend people? :)
I think you're talking about fundamentalism or extremism. But thinking about the original question, I suppose only Nazism really generates more of a reaction, even more than fascism in general (generalissimo?) That aside from more obvious stigma of particular cultures against certain religions/race/sexual preferences/blah blah blah.
While atheism as an -ism may be brushed off in Canada, it ain't like that here. Chicago has such a large population of liberals it tends to swing national votes, even while the majority of the state is conservative (the whole "one state two state, red state blue state" thing is just another way to dumb down elections). What that means is that you can go downtown and be just about anything you like comfortably, but step out too far into the suburbs and you can draw some heat for being an atheist or gay (or - heaven help you - an artist). But overall I'd say atheism is most comparable to communism. To some of the home-grown around here, they're pretty much the same thing.
It always comes down to differing notions, doesn't it? This is the reason I absolutely hate using the words "liberal" or "conservative". You'd be hard-pressed to find a real definition of those words that definitively matches the myriad of images conjured. What if I believe in stringent emission standards, but staunchly defend my right to own a firearm? If I think abortion is a societal evil, but strongly defend women's right to decide whether or not they need to have one, am I conservative or liberal?
I think socialism has a little less wiggle-room with that regard, but the concept remains the same. As FDH suggested, some people conjure up images of food rations, work camps and state-assigned roles. Still others see a Norway-style utopia, where everyone is provided for and no free speech is ever squelched.
The discussion really seems to be about language and context. You also mention left and right...but what is "left" and "right"? I know in my last politics class (almost a decade now), the teacher drew the line, marked with "Communism" on one end and "Dictatorship" on the other. Both Hitler and Chairman Mao were deemed liberators of their people...at first.
I would sooner blame the decrease in American freedoms (Canadian crossings among them) on a leftist view of border security--that our government should be used to stop the things that happen .0001% of the time--than on a right-wing conspiracy. And yet, because Bush happened to be in power at the drafting and passage of the PATRIOT, they're now apparently his doing.
In a roundabout way, I think socialism is the word used when you want an expansion of government programs to look bad. I don't think supporters of expanded government programs ever refer to it as "socialism".
Thus, the great experiment in democracy continues. ;)
"I don't think supporters of expanded government programs ever refer to it as "socialism"."
True. Not even here in Canuckistan... :)
Great topic! I do not know how I missed this before, but will weigh in on it now.
Thank you for finally mentioning Norway, which is an excellent example of socialism. Its a nation where every single person has access to good public education and can literally obtain what they set out for. The nation protects small local farmers against EU backed mega importers by staying out of the fascist oriented EU alliance and makes sure that its people are taken care of first.
The US, where socialism is taboo, largely has a system in place where you will, essentially, live in the social class that you are born into. The poor stay poor, the middle class stay middle class and the rich stay rich. I know that there are always exceptions, but we all know they are few and far between, I have not visited many doctors in the US that came from poor backgrounds, as education is out of reach for many.
I problem with socialism is that it is often confused with communism, the great evil of the totalitarian states of the former USSR and China. These have always been painted by the US government as the big enemies and even if the US people do not know why, they continue to mistrust anyone associated with the term. While it is difficult to distinguish the big differences, its really as simple as opportunity. In a socialist state, public services and protection is available to assist you in free enterprise, while in a communist state everything you do is for the public service.
I actually believe that communism is oppressive because it does not reward hard work or extraordinary abilities. None socialist systems are actually quite similar because of the over whelming expense. Many people work jobs they do not necessarily want, and therefor are unable to reach their true potential or dreams, simply because they cannot afford to lose their dental plan. It oppresses their freedom because as a responsible parent, for example, they cannot quit their job and start a private business at the risk that their son Jimmy won't be able to get braces to fix his ailing teeth.
Socialism is not evil...
P.S. Another excellent example of Socialism at work in Venezuela. Now, I know many of you have some bad taste in your mouth by just reading that statement, but please take the time to read this before you go ahead with your anti-Chavez rants about illegal elections and such.
Here is a wonderfully long explanation about the difference between socialism and communism.
Basically, Socialism is democratic, in the sense that it puts the power with the people while communism is conservative, meaning that it puts the power in a small elite group.
Joined: 08-07-07
People like to joke about Canada being 'the 51st state', 'America Jr.', etc. And as I've traveled more in the States (and met more Americans abroad, too), I've learned just how much we do have in common. But there are plenty of differences, too. Here's one:
Socialism.
It still seems to be a scary, scary word in much of the US, whereas to most Canadians, it's harmless. Recently I was talking to a retired firefighter from Michigan, who seemed to be an intelligent and well-traveled man, enthusiastic about local cultures, etc. We were talking about Michael Moore - and agreeing, despite our opposing politics, that the guy is kind of a d-bag - and the firefighter leaned in, lowered his voice, and said: "He's a card-carrying socialist, you know."
I didn't say anything, but wondered what "card-carrying socialist" even means any more. The phrase is so 1950s (1930s, even) to my ear. Is there an American Socialist Workers Party that Moore is a member of? Do they advocate killing priests and eating babies?
Almost everyone I know here at home, myself included, would consider themselves a socialist in a casual sort of way. Most folks here would probably consider Canada to be a socialist (or semi-socialist) country. But to many Americans, even relatively left-leaning ones, the word still seems to conjure up all the evils of Stalinism.
For example, it seems all anyone has to do in response to a government-subsidized health care proposal in the States is throw the old "socialized medicine" line at it to stop it in its tracks. Not that there aren't complex arguments on both sides of the universal health care debate, but that's the point: the "socialism" label kills that debate before it even gets started. No one even talks about the nuts and bolts - they just dismiss it as "socialism", striking fear into the hearts of voters, and move on.
It's weird. And following along with this never-ending election, I notice it more and more every day. Thoughts, anyone?
Are there any other words with that sort of power in one country, but which are harmless in another?